Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Blame For 787 Delay Goes Mostly To Suppliers?  
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5271 times:

I was reading the following interesting article:


Dreamliner makes history with plastic, outsourcing, design — and delays
By Dominic Gates
Seattle Times aerospace reporter


which gave a very interesting history of the 787 program.

The part that stuck me the most was:

Quote:

The Dreamliner is set to fly almost 28 months later than originally scheduled.

And with a slowed production ramp-up, many customers will get their airplanes more than 2 ½ years late.

For Boeing, it's an unprecedented outcome.

From factory rollout to first flight took precisely two months for Boeing's last new airplane, the 777, in 1994.

For the Dreamliner, with its bungled outsourcing of design and assembly, that transition took 2 ½ years.

Supplier partners bear the blame for most of that, along with poor project management by Boeing.

The Machinists union strike in 2008 added two months of further delay.

And Boeing engineers must answer for the design flaw at the wing-body joint that extended the wait this year.

It's an interesting point of view.

In my mind, the buck stops with Boeing.

They chose the partners, they are responsible for the outcome.

And it's clear Boeing was pushing tons of design changes at them after designs should have frozen.

So is the Seattle Times pandering to the home crowd?


Inspiration, move me brightly!
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5048 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The facts are the suppliers cocked up.

Yes, as the Prime Contractor Boeing is ultimately responsible for the delays to the customers, and their decisions in many cases exacerbated the problems at the subs, but Boeing contracted with the suppliers who failed to meet the contract.


User currently offlineCatIII From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5032 times:

One of the things I always wondered about creating the second line in Charleston was if the rationale behind it was that they could use a best practices approach and do the line "right" so to speak. In my company I don;t work on the manufacturing side of the house, but from talking to our guys they tell me that have two supply chains like that can be a nightmare. However, if they use the CHS operation to get the supply chain working the right way, they can then take those practices and apply them to the SEA chain.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4968 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CatIII (Reply 2):
One of the things I always wondered about creating the second line in Charleston was if the rationale behind it was that they could use a best practices approach and do the line "right" so to speak.

The Everett line is the one that will be teaching the Charleston line how to build a plane. Charleston will, at least at first, only handle 787-8 production because by 2013 the Everett line will have already worked out how best to assemble the plane so they will be in the best position to teach Charleston how to build a 787-8, allowing Everett to dedicate more production slots to production of the 787-9.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21853 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4940 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
In my mind, the buck stops with Boeing.

They chose the partners, they are responsible for the outcome.

   If you're going to put your name on an airplane, it's your responsibility. If they don't want that responsibility, then call it a Rockwell/Mitsubishi/Honeywell/Alenia/Raytheon 787 (I have no idea whether those manufacturers are involved, I was just rattling off companies I've heard of because I don't care to look up the actual ones - hopefully you get the point).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4890 times:

Quoting Revelation (Thread starter):
In my mind, the buck stops with Boeing.

They chose the partners, they are responsible for the outcome.

Yes, but there's a difference between responsibility and accountability.

Boeing, as the OEM, is accountable for the aircraft. The buck does stop with them, and the customers are entirely entitled to be mad at Boeing, and only Boeing. However...that doesn't subvert the fact that many many many suppliers did not deliver what they said they would when they said they would. A lot of suppliers did not fullfil their responsibilities to Boeing...at the end of the day, Boeing is still accountable for the delays, but they're not soley responsible for them.

Tom.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4883 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):

Yes, as the Prime Contractor Boeing is ultimately responsible for the delays to the customers, and their decisions in many cases exacerbated the problems at the subs, but Boeing contracted with the suppliers who failed to meet the contract.

Yes, but if you sign a contract with a sub, and you don't do due diligence and ascertain that the sub can actually do what they claim they can do, isn't that your fault?

I think there was a lot of wishful thinking in Boeing's head as opposed to due diligence.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineshankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4688 times:

Might as well blame it on the boogie

One either manages a process or one doesn't.

Boeing singularly failed to manage the 787 design, development and production processes, accepting pf course that the new technilogy took them places where they did not expect to be. Some decisions remain plainly bizare, such as the early fanfare roll out.

Sub-contracting is not a new procurement method and therefore Boeing have no excuses. Blame the people who's name is written on the side of the plane

I actually think the blame period is however long over and wish the people at Boeing well in now promoting and developing this super airliner



L1011 - P F M
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7625 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4601 times:

Quoting shankly (Reply 7):
I actually think the blame period is however long over and wish the people at Boeing well in now promoting and developing this super airliner

Well if they are still bringing it up obviously it is not. This program has lost money, some has already been written off against Boeing's bottom line, if share holders demand accountability, you expect executives at Boeing to stand up, salute and take the blame while having no golden parachutes?

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 5):
Boeing, as the OEM, is accountable for the aircraft. The buck does stop with them, and the customers are entirely entitled to be mad at Boeing, and only Boeing. However...that doesn't subvert the fact that many many many suppliers did not deliver what they said they would when they said they would. A lot of suppliers did not fullfil their responsibilities to Boeing...at the end of the day, Boeing is still accountable for the delays, but they're not soley responsible for them.

One would assume that Boeing actually checked out these suppliers / vendors before signing contracts with them, if they were good enough then what changed, should be the product that Boeing requested, in which case, back to square one.


User currently offlinePITingres From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 1163 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4557 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
Yes, but if you sign a contract with a sub, and you don't do due diligence and ascertain that the sub can actually do what they claim they can do, isn't that your fault?

I understand what you're trying to say, but one has to wonder what sort of due diligence would have convinced anyone that (for instance) Alcoa would turn out to be unable or unwilling to supply the contracted fasteners at the contracted time? Some of the suppliers at fault were major companies with good track records. I think it would have taken clairvoyance to realize ahead of time what would happen. And supposing your crystal ball kicked in and you didn't contract the fasteners to Alcoa, who does get the contract? The supplier is supposed to be the expert in whatever bits they supply, and at the end of the day you have to write the contract and expect that they will meet their promises.

Obviously Boeing took a bad situation and made it much worse, with design changes and supply chain mismanagement and blind optimism; but I can't agree that Boeing is (solely) responsible for the screw-ups and delays.



Fly, you fools! Fly!
User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6371 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4533 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The facts are the suppliers cocked up.

Yes, but Boeing is where the final blame and responsibility goes. They are not only the OEM, as already mentioned, but they are the ones that chose to have so many darn suppliers from so many corners of the globe. Boeing decided to be extremely hands off with the 787 and it came back to bite them.


User currently offlinebongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3681 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4527 times:

One of the major factors to my thinking is that many of these were not subcontractors in the conventional sense. I.e. companies producing parts for a fixed cost to a customers specification. Instead they were risk sharing partners, responsible for some aspects of the design work, and responsible for financing and taking a financial share of the programme.
Such a strategy really does require a very high level of understanding and co operation between all parties, and the whole proghramme has been a victim of its own sales success. The at one time ever increasing order book creating a demand for more sub assemblies at an ever increasing production rate.
Presented with the chance to be part of probably the biggest widebody project to date, and the chance to be an integral part of the design team, and to share in the profits, is it any surprise they promised far more than they could deliver.
At the end of the day though the responsibility has to come down to the company with its name on the product.


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1899 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4506 times:

I remember a big deal being made of outsourcing some design to Russian firms. There were rumors of most of that design work being unusable but I never did get the real story.
I'd assume that the SOB (pun intended) problem that cost them the most recent six month delay was all Boeing since it consisted of a problem between two different parts joining. (admitting that my assumptions are worth two bucks less than a cup of coffee)
And I know the strike didn't help.
So maybe half being Boeings fault directly and half being Boeings fault for rosy assumptions regarding supplier performance.

I never had a sense of Boeing reps trying to evade responsibility when they identified sources of delay. They know that airlines don't but planes from Alcoa.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4455 times:

Quoting PITingres (Reply 9):
Obviously Boeing took a bad situation and made it much worse, with design changes and supply chain mismanagement and blind optimism;

I would like to address the design changes as this seems to come up a lot lately. If I could make one thing clear on this forum, it'd be that the Boeing design changes are not what they're made out to be. This is my opinion, so take it for what it's worth, but over the past several years of the program, this is what I've seen. The partners were given requirements early on in the program, so they could start their designs. Those were not "final" requirements, however. As designs matured, changes to the requirements became necessary as they always do in a large scale engineering project such as this. Discoveries are made, efficiencies are found, and mistakes are not always avoided. Changes to requirements were requested by both Boeing AND the partners. Designing an airliner is a dynamic process. Boeing is used to dealing with this in the past, but the partners haven't been a part of it to such a large scale and I think this caught them by surprise. I'm not pointing blame here, as I too would like to get past that, but the reality is that this was a huge learning experience for all involved.

It is also my opinion that Boeing just didn't know yet how to properly manage these kinds of changes. More learning curve.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
Yes, but if you sign a contract with a sub, and you don't do due diligence and ascertain that the sub can actually do what they claim they can do, isn't that your fault?

Yes, it is, but I assure you we did very extensive evaluations of each. You can't always predict everything, and the bulk of the partners and suppliers did what they promised. Some did not. It only takes one to go off course.

If I were an airline customer, I would hold Boeing accountable. This is Boeing's project. Boeing, in turn, has every right to hold its suppliers and partners accountable in cases where they did not hold up their end of the bargain.

[Edited 2010-03-04 07:18:06]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31387 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4430 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):
Yes, but if you sign a contract with a sub, and you don't do due diligence and ascertain that the sub can actually do what they claim they can do, isn't that your fault?

It's not like Boeing just went to some start-up down the street operating out of a garage who said "We can build a fuselage barrel for $5 a shipset!".

Spirit bought Boeing's Wichita facility. If Boeing doesn't know what their own people can do...

The Japanese Heavies have been providing components to Boeing for decades. They make something like a third of the 777 and around a quarter of the 767.

Vought has been in business for close to a century. Alenia Aeronautica has only been around for two decades, but they include companies who were cornerstones of the Italian aviation industry.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
The facts are the suppliers cocked up.
Quoting sw733 (Reply 10):
Yes, but Boeing is where the final blame and responsibility goes.

And did I not say that in my very next sentence?



I thought this thread was asking whether or not The Seattle Times was lying to "pander" to the Seattle readership. Both the Times and the late Seattle Post-Intelligencer have been accused of being Boeing's version of Pravda, publishing aerospace articles written by Boeing's PR Department.

But Dominic Gates didn't lie.

It was the suppliers who failed to deliver the parts Boeing needed to that directly contributed to the 787 being late. But they were not the sole point of failure for the program. Boeing's management exacerbated much of the problems the subs were having. And Mr. Gates said exactly that in his article, which was in fact bolded by the OP.

But if the point of this thread is just to rehash for the fifth-digit time how fracked-up Boeing is, it should just be closed.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4426 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Spirit bought Boeing's Wichita facility. If Boeing doesn't know what their own people can do...

I don't know why you're bringing them up. Of the biggest subs, they seem to have been the best-preprared.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinePacksonflight From Iceland, joined Jan 2010, 391 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4362 times:

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 11):
Instead they were risk sharing partners, responsible for some aspects of the design work, and responsible for financing and taking a financial share of the programme.
Such a strategy really does require a very high level of understanding and co operation between all parties, and the whole proghramme has been a victim of its own sales success. The at one time ever increasing order book creating a demand for more sub assemblies at an ever increasing production rate.

You are spot on there. Everybody is missing this point.
The thing is that this risk sharing partners where not selected on merits solely I think, but rather on who had the ability to come up with the biggest government check to finance the program. The Japanease government came up with 3.5 bn usd for this program.

Voight did not eaven have an engineering department when they where awarded this contract let alone experience in advanced composite materials, and I think that MHI Fuji and Kawasaki did not have that experience either.

The responsibillty has to lie with Boeing because they chose the partners in this program already labeled the most expencive outsourcing exerciese in American corporate history.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4271 times:

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 13):
Boeing is used to dealing with this in the past, but the partners haven't been a part of it to such a large scale and I think this caught them by surprise.

I'm not sure which "them" you mean, but I think it caught both Boeing and the subs by surprise.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 13):
I'm not pointing blame here, as I too would like to get past that, but the reality is that this was a huge learning experience for all involved.

Mr. Gates is assigning blame, with "most" going to the subs and the rest going to Boeing.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 13):
It is also my opinion that Boeing just didn't know yet how to properly manage these kinds of changes. More learning curve.

Indeed.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 13):
Yes, it is, but I assure you we did very extensive evaluations of each. You can't always predict everything, and the bulk of the partners and suppliers did what they promised. Some did not. It only takes one to go off course.

I can imagine Boeing did do thorough evaluations, and indeed missed things, as you say, you can't predict everything.

I feel Boeing didn't give themselves enough visibility into what the subs were doing so they could throttle back the whole program when it was clear that some were off course.

And once it was clear that some were off course they exacerbated the problem by having the subs send the partially built assemblies up the line which only resulted in a huge clog and lots of out of sequence issues.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 13):
If I were an airline customer, I would hold Boeing accountable. This is Boeing's project.

Agreed.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 13):
Boeing, in turn, has every right to hold its suppliers and partners accountable in cases where they did not hold up their end of the bargain.

Yes, but that doesn't matter much now because the damage to Boeing's reputation and it's balance sheet is already done.

It surely will influence what they do in the future, but that's little consolation.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):

It's not like Boeing just went to some start-up down the street operating out of a garage who said "We can build a fuselage barrel for $5 a shipset!".

Spirit bought Boeing's Wichita facility. If Boeing doesn't know what their own people can do...

The Japanese Heavies have been providing components to Boeing for decades. They make something like a third of the 777 and around a quarter of the 767.

Vought has been in business for close to a century. Alenia Aeronautica has only been around for two decades, but they include companies who were cornerstones of the Italian aviation industry.

Yes, Spirit is in essence Boeing South.

The heavies have been furnishing components for decades, but did not do the detailed design work for them. Even though the heavies are highly respected, it seems Boeing misjudged their ability to deal with the steady stream of changing requirements sent their way, much like was written about in #19 above.

And clearly Vought was totally out of its league on this program. Yes, they did build Corsairs in WWII and F8 Crusaders in the Korean era and A7 Corsair IIs in the Vietnam era, but had dwindled down to a much smaller entity by the time the 787 came along.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I thought this thread was asking whether or not The Seattle Times was lying to "pander" to the Seattle readership. Both the Times and the late Seattle Post-Intelligencer have been accused of being Boeing's version of Pravda, publishing aerospace articles written by Boeing's PR Department.

But Dominic Gates didn't lie.

It was the suppliers who failed to deliver the parts Boeing needed to that directly contributed to the 787 being late. But they were not the sole point of failure for the program. Boeing's management exacerbated much of the problems the subs were having. And Mr. Gates said exactly that in his article, which was in fact bolded by the OP.

I never said anything about Gates lying, that's on you.

The statement from the article is just his opinion.

I don't see why you'd equate disagreeing on an opinion to a lie.

I think his opinion is quite incorrect, so I had to wonder why he'd make such a statement.

Thus I asked if he was pandering to the home crowd.

In general I do not believe that ST or the late SP-I pander to the home crowd, but to me this seems to be one case where that charge could be justified.

[Edited 2010-03-04 09:35:20]


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4228 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 13):
Boeing is used to dealing with this in the past, but the partners haven't been a part of it to such a large scale and I think this caught them by surprise.

I'm not sure which "them" you mean, but I think it caught both Boeing and the subs by surprise.

Sorry I was not clear. The amount of change caught the partners by surprise, not Boeing. That was my point. The surprise on Boeing's side was how difficult it was for the partners and suppliers to accept that change, not that there was change.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
Mr. Gates is assigning blame, with "most" going to the subs and the rest going to Boeing.

And I didn't argue such. Indeed that is what he has done.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
I can imagine Boeing did do thorough evaluations, and indeed missed things, as you say, you can't predict everything.

Not sure what we missed. As a whole I don't think we missed things in those evaluations. Like I said, some things could not have been predicted, which means there was nothing to miss.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
I feel Boeing didn't give themselves enough visibility into what the subs were doing so they could throttle back the whole program when it was clear that some were off course.

I don't think visibility was the issue. We had lots. The partners/supplier were on site, sitting with us. Management knew the issues well in advance. I just think they (management) thought it could be recovered.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
And once it was clear that some were off course they exacerbated the problem by having the subs send the partially built assemblies up the line which only resulted in a huge clog and lots of out of sequence issues.

A decision I have no intentions of trying to defend...

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
Yes, but that doesn't matter much now because the damage to Boeing's reputation and it's balance sheet is already done.

Damage to reputation? Of course, and we'll recover by putting a quality product into service.

[Edited 2010-03-04 10:14:13]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12930 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4138 times:

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 18):

I don't think visibility was the issue. We had lots. The partners/supplier were on site, sitting with us. Management knew the issues well in advance. I just think they (management) thought it could be recovered.

Interesting. So the issue was that they didn't come up with a good recovery plan? Or they didn't track the recovery plan well? Not trying to put words into your mouth, but am still not sure where things went so wrong.

Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 18):
Damage to reputation? Of course, and we'll recover by putting a quality product into service.

I'm sure the 787 will be a quality product but I'm not sure how long it will take Boeing's reputation to recover. I know I don't look at Boeing the same way I did as before the 787 program. Airbus did eventually put out a quality product into service in the A380 about two years ago, but I imagine their customers still don't look at them the same way as they did before, and I don't know how long it will before they will.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineshankly From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2000, 1547 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4091 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 8):
Well if they are still bringing it up obviously it is not. This program has lost money, some has already been written off against Boeing's bottom line, if share holders demand accountability, you expect executives at Boeing to stand up, salute and take the blame while having no golden parachutes?

Yes but there comes a time where blame must be translated into a positive momentum. "Yes we messed up, but we learned a lot and actually we are pretty proud of our product". BoeEngr sums this mood up eloquently:
Quoting BoeEngr (Reply 18):
Damage to reputation? Of course, and we'll recover by putting a quality product into service



L1011 - P F M
User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4048 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
So the issue was that they didn't come up with a good recovery plan? Or they didn't track the recovery plan well?

Honestly, I don't know. Maybe it was just optimism that we would somehow pull it off. I wasn't part of the discussions, so I don't know.

I don't think things went as poorly as it may appear from the outside. There's been a lot of great success. It's just that it was planned to fit into a very agressive schedule, and we couldn't make it fit. (maybe this is just my own denial?    )


User currently offlineBoeEngr From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 321 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4045 times:

Quoting shankly (Reply 20):
Yes but there comes a time where blame must be translated into a positive momentum.

And I am soooooo ready to go there!


User currently offlineWarpSpeed From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 595 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3976 times:

I've also heard the IAM strike, fastener shortage, side of body

Quoting Revelation (Reply 19):
I'm sure the 787 will be a quality product but I'm not sure how long it will take Boeing's reputation to recover. I know I don't look at Boeing the same way I did as before the 787 program. Airbus did eventually put out a quality product into service in the A380 about two years ago, but I imagine their customers still don't look at them the same way as they did before, and I don't know how long it will before they will.



Further to your point, a lot of the reputation recovery will depend on Boeing meeting the updated 787 delivery schedule. Airbus has certainly not helped its cause with the additional A380 delivery delays/rescheduling; although many of these appear to be customer or supplier induced. If Boeing ceases to churn out disappointment after disappointment (which it seems to have done so for now) AND puts out the quality product per the revised schedule that everyone expects, then the jaded memories could fade away. Besides, most airlines are concerned with an array of other negative issues right now. My hope is that 787 performance will delight its customers by exceeding expectations during route deployment. Ultimately, customers vote with their dollars. And, as you note, the A380 has performed very well and you hear about airlines raving and some wanting more. The same could happen with the 787. So to Boeing: forgiveness favors those that sin no more.



DaHjaj jaj QaQ Daghajjaj !!!!
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6491 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3958 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 17):
And clearly Vought was totally out of its league on this program. Yes, they did build Corsairs in WWII and F8 Crusaders in the Korean era and A7 Corsair IIs in the Vietnam era, but had dwindled down to a much smaller entity by the time the 787 came along.

Vought, like Fairchild(-Hiller/-Republic/-Dornier/etc) really shared nothing other than name with its original firm. Contrast this with Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop, and even BAe and EADS, who are, if not necessarily in their original facilities, are operating near to them, and are doing the same sort of work, though perhaps through a division.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
25 Post contains images astuteman : But the exam question is "Why?". And for every why that you can come up with, Boeing will be implicated either by lack of due diligence, or not under
26 Post contains images BoeEngr : Absolutely agreed. Thanks. On a personal level, I will accept some of both the blame and the credit.
27 Post contains images astuteman : I have first hand experience writ large on this one my friend. I only wish we'd got to the "credit" bit by now. Alas..... Hence I can genuinely demon
28 Post contains images Stitch : Maybe it's me, but I don't see this as binary equation where either Boeing is completely responsible and the suppliers are totally blameless or Boein
29 Post contains links and images travelhound : Did anyone see the interview Dominic Gates had with Boeing's Jim Albaugh? http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ideo-complete-seattle-times-i.html Th
30 Post contains links Stitch : Yup: Jim Albaugh - Boeing Outsourced Too Much On 787 (by Stitch Mar 2 2010 in Civil Aviation)
31 Revelation : I appreciate the forthright replies. I'm quite sure there's a lot of greatness going on, just as there was on A380 and will be on A350. It's a shame
32 Wingman : I agree with the last comment, Gates may be saying that subs bear the "most" blame but not Boeing. In every piece I've read Boeing seems to be steppin
33 Post contains images BoeEngr : Well, "someone" did (me!), I was just the wrong "someone" to be able to do anything about it.
34 travelhound : I think it is an argument of degree. I think Mike Blair said there were some sub-contractors that he would prefer not to work with again.
35 Zeke : Maybe, maybe taker related as well.
36 Post contains images astuteman : As I posted a response that pretty much said exactly this, I'd say you weren't doing too bad. Ha! I have gone on record as saying that I think the do
37 Post contains images par13del : In all honesty, it's your fault, no bash either, you should have prevented them from seeing what you were doing. Management today rather than taking
38 Packsonflight : At the time when Boeing launched the 787 they boldly talked of them selves as system intergreators but not as airplane manufacturer. I guess they have
39 tarheelwings : And that's the key, isn't it? I think we can give kudos to Boeing for attempting this paradigm shift while at the same time criticize them for its po
40 Revelation : There are a lot of things one can do to reduce risk. It just seems Boeing was so overtaken with enthusiasm they didn't put into place any workable me
41 Bongodog1964 : I'm sure that Boeing felt that turning their sub contractors into "partners" was the ideal solution to reducing risk. At a stroke you not only reduce
42 astuteman : Perhaps, but if our experience is anything to go by, changing the paradigm at a time when you've just lost some of the key experience/knowledge in yo
43 sunrisevalley : Bringing back Lars Anderson from retirement to run the 777 upgrade program suggests that Boeing lack seasoned senior project managers . Hands on is t
44 sphealey : Strike the word "project" from that sentence. One thread common to the big project disasters of the last 10 years is that they have all occurred sinc
45 par13del : I hope not, we are talking about Boeing not NG or some other defense contractor, their defense business is not that huge in comparison to their comme
46 trigged : Pure and simple, the suppliers may be the root of the problem, but Boeing is responsible for the outcome. There should have been sufficient oversight
47 tdscanuck : They haven't delivered any frames...it's physically impossible for *any* program to be in a profitable position at this point. Albaugh specifically s
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Chinese Suppliers To Supply Parts For 787 posted Thu Jun 2 2005 18:14:17 by Moose1226
Gecas Looking To Place A Firm Order For 787's posted Thu Oct 29 2009 18:39:20 by DAL1044
LOT Said To Not Exercise Options For 787's.. posted Fri Sep 5 2008 01:20:00 by Beaucaire
TSA: Airlines To Blame For Overzealous Screening posted Thu Jul 24 2008 15:40:30 by Glbltrvlr
Air India To Seek 787 Delay Compensation posted Fri Jan 4 2008 15:31:09 by EI321
Pilot Error To Blame For Crash Of Unmanned Drone! posted Sat Nov 10 2007 13:23:30 by Ferengi80
Boston Hopes For 787 Flights To Asia posted Sat Sep 15 2007 08:59:00 by BoomBoom
First Major Assembly For 787 Delivered To Everett posted Thu Apr 26 2007 18:18:02 by PC12Fan
A380 Delay "A Relief" To Suppliers posted Tue Jun 27 2006 16:38:12 by Leelaw
Boeing Goes Outside For 787 Parts Delivery posted Fri Feb 24 2006 17:25:25 by N60659